A snob's guide to spirituality, theology...and higher physics

Apr 21, 2010, 6:27pm

Received my copy of Gerald Heard's PRAYERS AND MEDITATIONS today. Lately I've noticed a marked preoccupation with books and written material relating to matters of the spirit. I also recently picked up Stephen Mitchell's THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JESUS and a volume by Tielhard de Chardin. Anybody else's thoughts taking a spiritual turn?

What books do you turn to for inspiration, meditation, solace?

What's your favorite translation of the Bible?

Did Annie Dillard's HOLY THE FIRM make the hair on the back of your neck stand up (like mine did)?

Edited: May 7, 2010, 12:20pm

Most of my spiritual life is drawn from Buddhist and Hindu teachings with some Christian mysticism. That being said, What the Buddha Taught and In the Buddha's Words are excellent introductions to Buddhist thought and scripture (though scripture is a rather inaccurate word when referring to the sutras). Both come from a Therevadin perspective, which is rather different than most westerners who have been exposed to Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are used to. (that being said, though these were part of my early introduction I'm more of a Tibetan Buddhist than Therevadin).

Autobiography of a Yogi and the Collected Talks and Essays of Paramhansa Yogananda are most excellent reading. Yogananda was the first yogi to come to the west and spend most of his life teaching here. The tradition he teaches is a parallel tradition blending Christianity and Hinduism, and offers some interesting insights into both.

I have rather slowed down buying Buddhist books, as its so difficult to find much in the west that goes beyond introductory material to higher instruction and philosophical inquiry. I'm hoping as we get more western roshis and tulkus and rinpoches this will change, but we'll have to wait and see.

May 29, 2010, 2:34pm

I've a bit into STUMBLING ON HAPPINESS, which I think fits the notion of this thread. Thoughtful, funny and, I think, quite insightful. Daniel Gilbert is a Harvard psychologist and a very witty writer...

Jun 11, 2010, 9:32pm

I alluded to it in another thread but recently I picked up Huston Smith's THE SOUL OF CHRISTIANITY. I revere the man; he possesses the grace, gentleness and equanimity of someone truly blessed with divine insight...

Jun 14, 2010, 10:55pm

Jun 15, 2010, 12:55am

Cliff, the Soul of Christianity is excellent. I got to see Smith lecture when he came to visit my college a couple years ago. He certainly has his biases, but its not for lack of education and knowledge.

Jun 15, 2010, 1:14am

Jun 15, 2010, 3:37am

Jun 15, 2010, 9:55am

I have few heroes these days (cynical bastard that I am). Huston Smith is one of them, Annie Dillard another. None I can think of in politics, except perhaps Vaclav Havel. I greatly admire Elie Wiesel and I'd dearly love to meet Neil Armstrong. Pynchon might be fun...

Jun 16, 2010, 6:52pm

Reading A Confession by Tolstoy makes one realize just how abhorrent and awful Atlas Shrugged is. "You have wealth, so what?" I'm sure even the loquacious John Galt wouldn't know the answer to that one.

Jun 19, 2010, 5:32pm

Love Among the Ruins by Walker Percy also looks fascinating. Has the best first line I've read in a while:

"Now in these dread latter days of old violent U.S.A. and of the Christ-forgetting Christ-haunted death-dealing Western world I came to myself in a grove of young pines and the question came to me: has it happened at last?"

The World of Silence Max Picard - meditations by a Swiss Catholic philosopher on the role of "noise" in making totalitarianism possible written right after WWII. Obscure, BUT recently reprinted and early, profound media criticism from a "spiritual" POV.

Oct 24, 2010, 9:58pm

Oct 24, 2010, 10:51pm

The only thing that comes close is Inland Empire, a 3 hr semi-plotless mindscrew. But I totally agree, Eraserhead is just plain nutzoid disturbing. Not as disturbing as deformed alien kids wearing snowsuits and carrying hammers, but still disturbing.

"All those trying to inculcate in us a respect for convention (fear, in other words) or, especially, hoping to sell us something, strive to populate our lives with specters of dread and phantoms of failure sure to descend on us as soon as we diverge from the prescribed way. Early on we internalize these fears and learn to live within their bounds. To disenthrall ourselves, we need to see them for what they are: the manifestations of prejudice, cowardice, petty-mindedness, and even greed. Certainly, ignoring them involves risk, as does any truly independent activity, and we may at least initially suffer for our boldness in striking out on our own. But if adversity hits, we need to step back and remember that turning our troubles, whatever they are, into matters of cosmic import is a sure path to self-absorption and misery. Independence comes with a price to be paid, and often a high price, but the rewards of living according to one’s instinct and inclination exceed all others."

-from "Journey to Ithaca" by Jeffrey Taylor

"Pain may in fact be our best teacher, our most reliable guru. There’s something antithetical to wisdom in the notion that we should take a pill to assuage our pain or quell our fears. The overarching, eternal questions of life and death do frighten us, at least at first, but in overcoming our fear and beginning the search for answers we acquire wisdom."

Jan 19, 2011, 1:01pm

Unfortunately, religious moderates and other moral cowards remain silent as this vacuous canker sore takes the governorship. To be fair, it is Alabama, a state that would need carpet bombing to enter the Stone Age, since it obviously takes its idiocy and sanctimonious belligerency very seriously ... when not attending their meth labs.

Jan 19, 2011, 1:13pm

Jan 19, 2011, 1:55pm

I know it sounds cliche and its seen on millions of those cloying bumper stickers, but "Coexist." Its when people can't coexist with others that really raises the hackles on my neck. Plus the obvious fact that the United States was founded on the principle of secularism and religious/philosophical/intellectual coexistence, not Protestant Christian tyranny. I'm not for multiculturalism as an end in itself, but as a means to smooth over our latent desire for supremacy and dominance. Competition, discussion, debate, etc. -- that's what makes a nation great. A veritable rainbow of blah blah blah tolerance understanding and such. When you look at places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the American South, one understands why people are so reluctant to invest in these intolerant hellholes.

Jan 19, 2011, 3:03pm

I get very tired of people confusing the Christianism of the new Alabama governor with the teachings of the Bible. They are not the same thing at all. In fact, this kind of thing is one more example to me of the existence of Satan. He has corrupted the message of Christ beyond recognition. Just as we were told he would. The Bible plainly teaches that we are all brothers and sisters by virtue of our common humanity, not because of some magic spell, some incantation that makes us "saved", whatever that means. Pay careful attention to this thinking. This is another way to divide us rather than bring us together. Christianity is not a divisive religion. It has been made one by humans. The guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

As I said elsewhere, theology is the product of Satan. We don't need people to tell us how to think about what the Bible says. We just need to read it for ourselves. Something Christianists are apparently unable to do.

Jan 19, 2011, 4:49pm

Jan 19, 2011, 4:52pm

Gene, Satan has standards. To inspire the venal prattling of that Alabama swamp-bilge in human form, well, then Mr. Satan is indeed slumming. Satan is much better served inspiring the lyrics and sonic daring of Marilyn Manson and the free market-friendly atrocities of the Duvalier family. Besides, Satan is scheduled to brunch with Hitler.

I do agree with the epithet "Christianist" and its non-correlation to mainline Christianity. French sociologist Olivier Roy nailed the real issue in this little fracas:

"Fundamentalism, in his view, is a symptom of, rather than a reaction against, the increasing secularization of society. Whether it takes the form of the Christian right in the United States or Salafist purity in the Muslim world, fundamentalism is not about restoring a more authentic and deeply spiritual religious experience. It is instead a manifestation of holy ignorance, Roy’s biting term meant to characterize the worldview of those who, having lost both their theology and their roots, subscribe to ideas as incoherent as they are ultimately futile. The most important thing to know about those urging the restoration of a lost religious authenticity is that they are sustained by the very forces they denounce."

As far as authenticity goes, I consider it a mug's game, another Sisyphusean challenge, an attempt at meaning in an otherwise meaningless world. Whatever, the food at the Olive Garden is still good, whether or not its culinary roots can accurately traced back to the food of the indigenous, hard-working peasants of Tuscany. I'll just watch Fight Club again and wonder what my dining room set says about me.

Edited: Mar 2, 2011, 10:36am

"Exonerating the Jew for killing Jesus." Gee, how noble of the Pope Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Vatican that leveled the charge of deicide and blood libel against the Jewish people in the first place? (Not to mention the whole altar boy touchy thing while simultaneously condemning gay marriage, but that's another tirade.)

Mar 2, 2011, 10:38am

Mar 2, 2011, 11:01am

That's the sad thing, since I really love Catholic and Lapsed Catholic literature. Adultery is ho-hum as a subject, but if it makes the adulterer that much closer to eternal damnation ... well, how Faustian and sublime. Greene, Waugh, Alexander Theroux are all great Catholic writers, yet they also transcend the category. Then there are the Lapsed Catholics: Burgess and even DAF Sade with his explorations of blasphemy and freedom.

Mar 2, 2011, 12:07pm

Indeed. I wasn't attempting to be comprehensive, but those were the authors that first popped into my head. Catholic/Lapsed Catholic Authors could merit a thread by itself. I haven't read Walker Percy, but I have one of his surrealist/apocalyptic novels -- name escapes me -- that I really want to read.

Mar 2, 2011, 2:49pm

Mar 2, 2011, 3:20pm

56: That's assuming that sanctimonious backstabbing twit had any loyalty to begin with? Ethnic and religious background notwithstanding, Lieberman is an awful human being. His awfulness transcends any biological or confessional category. He makes Ferdinand Celine look like the paragon of morality.

Edited: Mar 2, 2011, 3:43pm

Edited: Mar 2, 2011, 3:48pm

What gene did was not "criticism" or "debate", and I did not hinder him or anyone else from speaking or typing.

Claiming that Jewish politicians or government figures have dual loyalty is a classic anti-semitic argument. It has a long history. There is a similar history of claiming Catholic politicians have dual loyalty to the Vatican. The former is connected to anti-semitism; the latter is connected to anti-Irish and anti-Italian racism. While the latter has moreorless disappeared, the former is obviously alive and well.

Mar 2, 2011, 3:48pm

59: It's kind of legit if the critique is about their Jewishness. You could argue that a lot of Senators are pro-Israel - actually most of them are, to a fault - but somehow Lieberman is the one that gets the (I-Israel) thing - why is that? Hmmmm....

I have seen cartoons calling the Capitol Building "Israeli Occupied Territory" and I would not call that anti-semitic. But if all the vitriol is centered on those who just happen to also be Jewish...

Mar 2, 2011, 3:59pm

It doesn't help that "Jewish" is misappropriated and muddied; the term can connote either a religion or an ethnicity. Depending on the agenda of the accused and the agenda of the accuser, hoisting the flag "anti-semitic" can be exploited for various and sundry debating points.

And the correct geographic location of "Israeli Occupied Territories" include: The Gaza Strip, The West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Jerusalem ... I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

Edited: Mar 2, 2011, 4:15pm

The pro-Israel lobby is, to my mind, the single most influential group active in Washington today. They are well-financed, well-connected and have succeeded in hijacking U.S. foreign policy to the extent that anyone who criticizes Israel for its heavy-handed tactics or shows the slightest sympathy for Palestinian aspirations doesn't have a prayer of being appointed to any position of importance. That lobby has also effectively destroyed the U.S.'s credibility in the Middle East and has perpetuated an inequity that has led to the deaths of God knows how many people, the displacement of millions and made a mockery of any "peace process" each successive president embarks upon.

Seen in that light, are Celine's pamphlets and rants anywhere near as influential or dangerous or horrific? Was Celine responsible for the death of a single person of Jewish descent? He was a crank and misanthrope; his hatred of the Jewish people is undeniable but, except for the level of his vitriol, not exactly unique for his time.

Mar 2, 2011, 4:16pm

63: I agree with your first para - in its entirety - but not your second. I don't like to compare two things that are fundamentally different.

I think Celine bears a lot of responsibility for his reprehensible views precisely because he was such a smart guy - and I also am not sure whether or not they ended up hurting anyone but I find it hard to believe they didn't. Of course it will be hard to tie his own hate speech to whatever the Vichy government did to help Nazis kill Jews, but he was definitely on the same side.

I have lived in the Middle East, for thirteen years. I did think that Israel bears a lot of responsibility for Middle Eastern views of it, but I also think that European and American anti-Semitism has managed to gain a lot of ground in the Middle East where it didn't used to exist, and that is because of people like Celine (not him obviously, but people like him) who spread hate based on religion, Holocaust denial, and so forth, and there are a lot of them. They are not the same as people who speak out against Israeli atrocities.

Mar 2, 2011, 4:26pm

63> I think your conspiracy theory about the power of an 'Israel lobby' is a terrible misreading of modern politics and one that unfortunately plays into the worst sorts of conspiracies about 'conniving Jews undermining national interest' and so on. The wikileaks cables demonstrate very clearly that Israel is not controlling US foreign policy in the middle east. (Not that one needed wikileaks to know that!)

As for your second thing, Celine was an active propagandist for fascism and anti-semitism in the 1930's. Was he responsible for Jewish deaths? Yes. What an indecent question.

Mar 2, 2011, 5:36pm

#65 I think you're revealing your own biases and prejudices while trying to pin the donkey tail on me. Anyone arguing that U.S. foreign policy is not overtly aligned with Israeli interests is living in a weird bubble of their own creation. I'll not respond further on that point.

Anna: Celine was a smart guy, as were Eliot and Pound and ____________ fill in with a host of big names from the 1930's and 40's (including American national hero Charlie Lindbergh). Celine's views were/are reprehensible, his bigotry beyond dispute. But he was NOT alone.

The current pro-Israel lobby is responsible for an enormous amount of hardship in the Middle East AND they have succeeded in tainting U.S. foreign policy to the extent that, in my view, America has abandoned its national interests and endangered its own homeland in its irrational, Christian-based belief that the Jewish people are the "chosen ones" and a bulwark against the spread of evil Muslims intent on conquering the world for the sake of their debased religion.

I sense this thread is becoming personal and divisive so I think I'll leave it there. You know what I think, where my allegiances lie and I think I see (re: #65) where other folks are coming from.

Mar 3, 2011, 12:01pm

Mar 3, 2011, 4:19pm

All I do is consider what's in the best interests of the US, compare that to the way Israel drags us around by the nose, acting quite often against our best interests, and decide that because of the things Lieberman supports about Israel, he, too, acts not in the best interests of the United States, but in the perceived best interest of Israel. No matter what Israel wants from US we give it to them. We are afraid of them. We are a colony of Israel, at present. Although a little less of one, but not much less, since Obama took over. Hence, Lieberman (I-Israel). He never ever casts a single vote against the Israeli governments wishes. Israel is a pox on the earth and Jerusalem is its pustule.

BTW, Gaza has never, ever, been a part of Israel, even at its most expansive under David and Solomon. Thus Israel has no claim on Gaza at all and should leave it alone.

BTW, I am not anti-Semitic. I don't like the policies of Israel. Is that not allowed or does that make me automatically anti-Semitic. Calling someone anti-Semitic reminds me of a story about a boy and some sheep and a wolf. It's bullshit.

We should be at war with Israel. Do you know any other countries that could have done this while we work hard on covering it up for them? No, we should have taken Israel out in 1968. We should have at least sent a public envoy to Tel Aviv to let them know we were pissed off at them. We didn't even do that. If it was for the US government we wouldn't even know about the Liberty. What other aggressive acts of war has Israel committed against the US? No, as states go, Isreal is scum. I can't speak for the people of Israel, but some of them make Sharia Law look like a life-saver.

Go ahead, call me anti-Semitic if you wish. It won't change my mind. The only thing that will change my mind about Israel is when they either give in to a two state solution so the Palestinians can have their own shot at governance, or when they offer first class citizenship in Israel to everyone living in the occupied territories. Until Israel accepts the need for human rights for the Palestinians they, as a country, are scum.

Mar 3, 2011, 4:48pm

The people who are doing the most to change policy in Israel seem to be ... leftist Israelis and leftist American Jews. If AIPAC is responsible for Israeli policy at all, these groups more than balance it out, I say.

I agree with Chomsky that there is a wide consensus among the powers-that-be that Israel and the US share interests and Israel should be supported at nearly any cost.

(I also think that AIPAC has influence though, mostly electorally, that is, keeping people who don't agree with this consensus from getting elected in the first place. But I agree it is sloppy to conflate AIPAC with the consensus itself.)

Mar 7, 2011, 4:31pm

Mar 7, 2011, 4:37pm

This is more of a temporal concern, but the PRC on the UN's Human Rights Committee is rife with irony. (Granted, as a citizen of the US I can hardly wag my finger in moral approbrium, but it still rubs me the wrong way.) --- This statement was made in China on cheap plastic, like American flags and other patriotic detritus Americans purchase in bulk.

On a tangential note, here is Walter Benjamin's fragment entitled "Capitalism as religion":

Mar 7, 2011, 4:39pm

Watched Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" last night. It teeters on the edge, arms windmilling, but has moments of brilliance - the "his soul's still dancing" bit, for example. Cage just... transcends criticism. He plays the title character like a collection of twitches and mannerisms hiding under a bad toupee. It's so unlike actual acting, it's scary.

Mar 7, 2011, 5:23pm

"Bad Lieutenant": that is one whacked film--up and down, at times really breath-taking. Talk about an anti-hero. Would like to do an essay some time, comparing the original and Herzog's take. Both have their moments, both are flawed but they never bore you, that's one damn thing for sure.

Mar 8, 2011, 10:45am

I totally agree with their analysis of "The Jungle." There are some strong Socialist messages in there...

Probably because Upton Sinclair was a lifelong Socialist -- like fellow writer George Orwell -- and even ran for office on the Socialist ticket. Sinclair also wrote Oil!, a book later adapted into the Pure Awesomeness that is "There Will Be Blood."

Mar 8, 2011, 4:04pm

Edited: Mar 12, 2011, 6:08pm

Now here's the kind of theology/philosophy I find intoxicating:

"I believe that there is in life, and in the human psyche, a certain quality, an inviolate eternal innocence, and this quality I call the Fool. It is a continuous wisdom and compassion that heals with fun and magic. It is the joy of the original Adam in men.

The Fool is purity of consciousness. This purity is a cosmic folly that is utterly detached from what most of the world thinks worth doing; it is detached from the deadening edifice of clever ambitions, of power, and of the incredible vanity of knowledge, that has already dulled the capacity for poetry of life in contemporary society.

The secret of life is to share the creative madness of God - if we have never experienced this madness we can be said never to have lived.

Art is a form of transcendental magic which is created out of that awakened sense, and returns to it.

The Fool is not interested in success or failure, or the vanity and burden of external knowledge. He is interested in life, in the mystery of consciousness and the transformation of consciousness which comes about through direct perception.

…In other words the Fool is interested in love and its manifestation in that harmony and wholeness which we call beauty. He is therefore in a state of creative vulnerability and is easily destroyed by the world.

Society must be based on our sense of wonder, the one experience which justifies our being alive."

Mar 13, 2011, 11:52am

Goddamnit, Karl, Musil has been on my radar for ages (like Robert Walser, like Thomas Bernhard). Dunno what's taken me so long to get to him (except his work ain't exactly available at every corner book shop--of which there are none where I live anyway). A German friend once told me Musil was the best short story writer Germany ever produced. So, yup, your citation is duly noted and I'll circle his name in red ink on my tattered wish list...

Mar 13, 2011, 3:55pm

Forgive the tangent, but I've been reading An Artificial Wilderness by Sven Birketts Absolutely essential to understanding 20th century literature. Essays on Musil, Bernhard, Walser, Duras, Walcott, Rushdie, and others. Alas, no Bolano. But he advocates exploring non-English writers for fun and pleasure. Furthermore, he's a great critical voice alongside the James Wood-Harold Bloom critical cartel. (I like both Wood and Bloom, but they are as omnipresent as Ken Burns sometimes.)

May 21, 2011, 4:05pm

Not too different from the boy crying "Wolf!" At least in the fairy tale, the boy cried wolf 3 times and then the villages gave him his comeuppance. I honestly lost count of the times when some garden variety nutjob gets media attention for a theory about the world ending.

Jun 20, 2011, 12:01pm

Watched The Mormons, the American Experience/Frontline doc. It was a well-done intro to the little-known religion. By no means comprehensive and a little light on the Mormon's rather idiosyncratic theology, but overall a good intro for someone with no prior knowledge. Comparable to the 3-part series on Islam narrated by Sir Ben Kingsley.

Jul 20, 2013, 11:21pm

Jul 23, 2013, 5:36pm

#107, I find that article fascinating. Reminds me of my biology professor in the 1970's musing over whether viruses are an exception to the normal rule of things evolving from simple to complex. He mentioned that some were wondering if viruses actually developed from more complex cells.